dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Soccer Coaching

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
Non-Precedent Decision of the
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date: NOV. 20, 2023 In Re: 29060629 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver) 
The Petitioner seeks classification as an individual of exceptional ability, as well as a national interest 
waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this EB-2 classification. See Immigration and 
Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b )(2), 8 U.S.C. § l l 53(b )(2). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS) may grant this discretionary waiver of the required job offer, and thus of a labor 
certification, when it is in the national interest to do so. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner had not 
established that he was an individual of exceptional ability or that a waiver of the required job offer, 
and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. 
On appeal, the Petitioner asserts that the Director erred in his decision. In these proceedings, it is the 
Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit by a preponderance of evidence. 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361; Matter ofChawathe, 25 l&N Dec. 369,376 (AAO 2010). 
Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
To establish eligibility for a national interest waiver, a petitioner must first demonstrate qualification 
for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or an individual 
of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Because this classification requires that the 
individual's services be sought by a U.S. employer, a separate showing is required to establish that a 
waiver of the job offer requirement is in the national interest. 
Section 203(b) of the Act sets out this sequential framework: 
(2) Aliens who are members of the professions holding advanced degrees or aliens of 
exceptional ability. -
(A) In general. - Visas shall be made available ... to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or 
who because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will 
substantially benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or 
educational interests, or welfare of the United States. 
(B) Waiver ofjob offer-
(i) National interest waiver. ... [T]he Attorney General may, when the Attorney 
General deems it to be in the national interest, waive the requirements of 
subparagraph (A) that an alien's services in the sciences, arts, professions, or 
business be sought by an employer in the United States. 
Exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business is defined in 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(2) as a degree of 
expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered in the sciences, arts, or business. To qualify 
as an individual of exceptional ability, 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii) sets forth six criteria, of which an 
individual must meet at least three. 
While neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest," we set forth 
a framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions in the precedent decision Matter of 
Dhanasar, 26 I&N Dec. 884 (AAO 2016). Dhanasar states that after a petitioner has established 
eligibility for EB-2 classification, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter 
of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates: (1) that the foreign 
national's proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) that the foreign 
national is well positioned to advance the proposed endeavor; and (3) that, on balance, it would be 
beneficial to the United States to waive the requirements of a job offer and thus of a labor certification. 
II. ANALYSIS 
As stated above, the first step to establishing eligibility for a national interest waiver is demonstrating 
qualification for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, as either an advanced degree professional or 
an individual of exceptional ability. On appeal, the Petitioner does not assert nor does the record 
establish that he is eligible for the EB-2 classification as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. Therefore, he must establish that he qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability. 
As a preliminary matter, the Petitioner asserts that the Director "did not apply the proper standard of 
proof in this case, instead imposing a stricter standard, to [his] detriment." Except where a different 
standard is specified by law, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing 
immigration benefit requests. See Matter of Chawathe, 25 I&N Dec. at 375; see also Matter of 
Martinez, 21 I&N Dec. 1035, 1036 (BIA 1997); MatterofSooHoo, 11 I&N Dec. 151,152 (BIA 1965). 
Accordingly, the "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard of proof governing national interest 
waiver petitions. See I USCIS Policy Manual, E.4(B), https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual. While 
the Petitioner asserts he has provided evidence sufficient to demonstrate his eligibility for the EB-2 
classification and a national interest waiver, he does not farther explain or identify any specific 
instance in which the Director applied a standard of proof other than the preponderance of evidence 
in denying the petition. 
1 See also Poursina v. USC1S. 936 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2019) (finding USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest 
waiver to be discretionary in nature). 
2 
A. Substantive Nature of Occupation and Proposed Endeavor 
We first conclude that the Petitioner has presented insufficient and inconsistent evidence regarding the 
nature of the occupation in which he is seeks employment in the petition, and the proposed endeavor that 
he intends to pursue. This is important because to qualify for the EB-2 classification as an individual 
of exceptional ability, the Petitioner must submit evidence within the context of his profession or 
occupation to show that he satisfies at least three of six regulatory criteria to meet the initial evidence 
requirement, and ultimately to demonstrate that he has a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered in his field. Section 203(b )(2) of the Act, and 8 C.F .R. § 204.5(k). 
Further, in order to demonstrate that the Petitioner is eligible for a national interest waiver he must, 
among other things, provide evidence sufficient to show that his specific proposed endeavor (1) has 
both substantial merit and national importance and (2) he is well positioned to advance it under the 
Dhanasar analysis. See generally 5 USCIS Policy Manual F.5, https://www.uscis.gov/policy­
manual/volume-6-part-f-chapter-5. 
The Petitioner indicated his prospective job title is "soccer coach," in part 6 of the petition, providing a 
list of proposed job duties, such as "[t]eaching athletes the rules, strategies, and techniques of soccer, 
aming to produce competitive players," and "developing training curriculums, including designing drills 
to optimize athletic performance," that appear to comport with those listed in DOL's Occupational 
Information Network (O*NET) summary report for "Coaches and Scouts," which may be viewed at 
https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/27-2022.00. The Petitioner also submitted an employment 
offer letter from (E-), a soccer academy, offering him a position as a soccer coach. In response to the 
Director's request for evidence (RFE), the Petitioner reaffirmed his intention to coach soccer noting 
he is already employed by E- as a soccer coach. 
On appeal, the Petitioner reiterates that he intends to be employed as a soccer coach. However, he also 
newly asserts on appeal that he intends to provide services as a "business development professional," 
noting that in that role he will "service as a conduit between [businesses] and its various markets." He 
states: 
Business development and sales professionals, such as [the Petitioner], are key to 
companies' financial stability- they are responsible for ensuring companies state afloat, 
and they primarily do this by aligning the business strategy with sales, pricing, and 
marketing tactics that resonate with consumers, including the overall market economy ... 
The [Petitioner's] proposed endeavor of optimizing business functions for U.S. companies 
will also directly impact the domestic job market. ... Further, we refer you to the initial 
filing and RFE response, where the [Petitioner] submitted evidence that he is advancing 
the proposed endeavor with his U.S. business. 
Notably, the Petitioner's descriptions of his proposed endeavor in the United States - offered prior to 
filing the appeal - did not include plans to provide business development and marketing analysis 
services to U.S. companies through his own business. The Petitioner must resolve these 
inconsistencies and ambiguities in the record with independent, objective evidence pointing to where 
the truth lies. Matter ofHo, 19 I&N Dec. 582, 591-92 (BIA 1988). 
3 
The Petitioner must meet eligibility requirements at the time of filing the petition. 8 C.F.R. § 
103.2(b)(l). We determine the Petitioner's appeal brief presents inconsistent information regarding 
his proposed employment, which is material to eligibility for the EB-2 classification and for a national 
interest waiver. On appeal, the Petitioner cannot materially change aspects of the occupation in which 
he will be employed, and the nature of the proposed endeavor that he intends to pursue. See Matter of 
lzummi, 22 I&N Dec. 169, 175 (Comm'r 1998); see also Matter ofKatigbak, 14 I&N Dec. 45, 49 (Reg'l 
Comm'r 1971), (which requires that petitioners seeking employment-based immigrant classification must 
possess the necessary qualifications as of the filing date of the visa petition.) 
We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has not provided sufficient and consistent evidence to 
establish what his prospective occupational field will be, in order to demonstrate that he is an 
individual of exceptional ability who possesses "a degree of expertise significantly above that 
ordinarily encountered" within that occupation. Section 203(b )(2) of the Act, and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k). 
Nor has he sufficiently demonstrated the specific nature of his proposed endeavor to show that (1) it 
has both substantial merit and national importance and (2) he is well positioned to advance it under 
the Dhanasar analysis. Dhanasar at 889. For these reasons, the petition may not be approved. 
B. Individual of Exceptional Ability 
As discussed, a petitioner must first provide documentation that satisfies at least three of six regulatory 
criteria in order to meet the initial evidence requirements as an individual of exceptional ability under 
the EB-2 classification. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). In denying the petition, the Director determined 
that while the Petitioner met the criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii)(F), he did not satisfy any of the 
other criteria. 
On appeal, the Petitioner generally asserts that he "has submitted concrete evidence corroborating that 
he meets at least 3 of the 6 criteria to demonstrate he possesses a degree of expertise above that 
ordinarily encountered in the field." He points to his "extensive professional experience," and 
contends that he is "an extremely accomplished individual [with] deep insight and advanced 
knowledge on training students, educating about health and wellness, coordination, coaching and 
having specialized knowledge regarding sports techniques, strategic planning, real estate, budgeting, 
retrofitting, and construction." 2 
We conclude that the Petitioner does not directly address this aspect of the Director's decision - i.e., 
he fails to identify a specific error in the Director's decision when he determined that the Petitioner 
did not meet at least three of six regulatory criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(k)(3)(ii). The reason for filing 
an appeal is to provide an affected party with the means to remedy what they perceive as an erroneous 
conclusion of law or statement of fact within a previous proceeding. See 8 C.F.R. § 103.3(a)(l )(v). 
By presenting only generalized statements of eligibility without explaining the specific aspects of the 
Director's decision they consider to be incorrect, the Petitioner has failed to identify the basis for 
contesting this requirement on appeal. Matter ofO-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (citing 
Matter ofR-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. 657,658 n.2 (BIA 2012) and finding when a filing party mentions an 
issue without developing an argument, the issue is deemed waived). 
4 
2 Notably, the Petitioner does not explain how specialized knowledge about "real estate, budgeting, retrofitting and 
construction" is relevant to his claimed advanced expertise as a soccer coach. Matter ofHo, 19 l&N Dec. at 582. 
The Petitioner has not established that he is eligible for the EB-2 classification. Since this issue is 
dispositive of the Petitioner 's appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve the Petitioner 's remaining 
arguments, including whether he is eligible for a national interest waiver, as a matter of discretion. 
See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) ("courts and agencies are not required to make 
findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach"); see also Matter of 
M-F-O- , 28 I&N Dec. 408, 417 n.14 (BIA 2021) (declining to reach alternative issues on appeal where 
an applicant is otherwise ineligible). 
Nonetheless, turning to the Petitioner's claims of eligibility under the Dhanasar analysis, we agree with 
the Director's ultimate conclusions. For example, regarding the national importance portion of the 
fust prong , although the Petitioner's statements on appeal reflect, in part, that he intends to work as a 
soccer coach in the United States, he has n ot offered sufficient information and evidence to 
demonstrate that the prospective impact of his proposed endeavor rises to the level of national 
importance. In Dhanasar, we determined that the petitioner's teaching activities did not rise to the 
level of having national importance because they would not impact his field more broadly. Id. at 893. 
Similarly, the record in this matter does not demonstrate that the Petitioner 's proposed endeavor stands 
to sufficiently extend beyond his future employer(s) and the individuals that he will provide soccer 
coaching services to such that it would impact U.S. interests or the sport of soccer more broadly at a 
level commensurate with national importance. In addition, he has not demonstrated that his specific 
proposed endeavor has significant potential to employ U.S. workers or otherwise offer substantial 
positive economic effects for our nation. 
III. CONCLUSION 
The Petitioner has not demonstrated that he qualifies as an individual of exceptional ability under 
section 203(b)(2)(A) of the Act. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each 
considered as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. Accordingly, the Petitioner has not 
established eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
5